Get APLawrence.com by RSSValues Versus Goals
Thu Nov 4 23:35:37 2004 Values Versus
Goals
Posted by John G. Spragge
Referencing: /Blog/B1123.html
It makes sense to separate passion and obstinacy in belief from cool empirical evaluation at the point where values, the basic things we strive for and care about, meet goals, the things we do to serve our values.
If you work in computers and you value a sharing community of equals, or you simply want the freedom to produce as good a product as you can, your goals may well include the success of Linux and the free software or open source movements. If, on the other hand, you believe the universe or the Creator have singled some of us out for favour and success, and the rest of us ought to serve and elevate those people, then the free software and open source movements may offend you. Beliefs and values such as these offer a complete vision of the world, one not subject to any empirical test. Within broad limits, we each hold certain values and believe certain things.
On the other hand, we do use empirical evidence to affirm or refute specific claims. Thus, we can determine which jobs Linux works well for, and which jobs it does not. If Linux performs poorly at certain tasks, that does not refute the values of the free software or open source movements; it simply means that one specific program does not work as well at one task as another.
In order to separate empirical questions from discussions about values, we need to carefully and honestly separate discussions about facts from discussions about values. Someone who sees Bill Gates as a paragon of capitalism may devoutly wish Linux did not exist, or wish for it to fail, but that doesn't change the facts. At the same time, such a person may attempt to persuade Linux programmers that their production of free software wastes their time and wrongs proprietary software vendors. Such an approach may not have a hope of success, but it has the advantage of honesty.
More Articles by John G. Spragge
/Blog/B1128.html copyright November 2004 John G. Spragge All Rights Reserved
Have you tried Searching this site?
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X support by phone, email or on-site: Support Rates
This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more. We appreciate comments and article submissions.
Many of the products and books I review are things I purchased for my own use. Some were given to me specifically for the purpose of reviewing them. I resell or can earn commissions from the sale of some of these items. Links within these pages may be affiliate links that pay me for referring you to them. That's mostly insignificant amounts of money; whenever it is not I have made my relationship plain. I also may own stock in companies mentioned here. If you have any question, please do feel free to contact me.
Specific links that take you to pages that allow you to purchase the item I reviewed are very likely to pay me a commission. Many of the books I review were given to me by the publishers specifically for the purpose of writing a review. These gifts and referral fees do not affect my opinions; I often give bad reviews anyway.
We use Google third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.
I sell and support
Kerio Mail server
Click here to add your comments
---November 5, 2004
I'm not sure I follow your closing statement. Do you mean that such would be an honestly held opinion that obviously isn't held by all?
Wssting time is certainly subjective, and there are strong arguments to be made that proprietary vendors are stifling innovation by restrictive copyrights and patents. So the "wrong" is again just opinion, isn't it? It may be opinion enforced by law, but laws aren't necessarily moral, or even good for society at large.
--TonyLawrence
---November 5, 2004
I'm not sure I follow your closing statement. Do you mean that such would be an honestly held opinion that obviously isn't held by all?
Wssting time is certainly subjective, and there are strong arguments to be made that proprietary vendors are stifling innovation by restrictive copyrights and patents. So the "wrong" is again just opinion, isn't it? It may be opinion enforced by law, but laws aren't necessarily moral, or even good for society at large.
--TonyLawrence
---November 5, 2004
I think that he is using the final paragraph of a example of a argument that a person that is against open source software could use effectively to defend their position.
Goal: You want to convince people that the open source developement model sucks.
So instead of going in and pointing out all the things that Linux does badly, you approach it from a moral/value standpoint and argue that your hurting people buy persuing free software, and that your wasting your time because it's not sustainable.
You find your goal, then find your values that support that goal, then argue on the basis of moral values rather then using something like benchmarks or sales figures to make your point.
Sort of sticking to the ethical sides of things, and aviod getting to drawn off in probably irrelevent details like driver support.
I don't think that the final statement is a statement of his personal stance, just a example for clarification.
My brain hurts now. :)
--Drag
---November 5, 2004
I'm not sure I follow your closing statement. Do you mean that such would be an honestly held opinion that obviously isn't held by all?
Wssting time is certainly subjective, and there are strong arguments to be made that proprietary vendors are stifling innovation by restrictive copyrights and patents. So the "wrong" is again just opinion, isn't it? It may be opinion enforced by law, but laws aren't necessarily moral, or even good for society at large.
--TonyLawrence
---November 5, 2004
I figure the article is about how he feels we should structure our argument of opensource vs closed source software developement models rather then him expressing his personal views on it.
I think that he is using the final paragraph of a example of a argument that a person that is against open source software could use effectively to defend their position.
Goal: You want to convince people that the open source developement model sucks.
So instead of going in and pointing out all the things that Linux does badly, you approach it from a moral/value standpoint and argue that your hurting people buy persuing free software, and that your wasting your time because it's not sustainable.
You find your goal, then find your values that support that goal, then argue on the basis of moral values rather then using something like benchmarks or sales figures to make your point.
Sort of sticking to the ethical sides of things, and aviod getting to drawn off in probably irrelevent details like driver support.
I don't think that the final statement is a statement of his personal stance, just a example for clarification.
My brain hurts now. :)
--Drag
---November 5, 2004
---November 5, 2004
I'm not sure I follow your closing statement. Do you mean that such would be an honestly held opinion that obviously isn't held by all?
Wssting time is certainly subjective, and there are strong arguments to be made that proprietary vendors are stifling innovation by restrictive copyrights and patents. So the "wrong" is again just opinion, isn't it? It may be opinion enforced by law, but laws aren't necessarily moral, or even good for society at large.
--TonyLawrence
---November 5, 2004
I figure the article is about how he feels we should structure our argument of opensource vs closed source software developement models rather then him expressing his personal views on it.
I think that he is using the final paragraph of a example of a argument that a person that is against open source software could use effectively to defend their position.
Goal: You want to convince people that the open source developement model sucks.
So instead of going in and pointing out all the things that Linux does badly, you approach it from a moral/value standpoint and argue that your hurting people buy persuing free software, and that your wasting your time because it's not sustainable.
You find your goal, then find your values that support that goal, then argue on the basis of moral values rather then using something like benchmarks or sales figures to make your point.
Sort of sticking to the ethical sides of things, and aviod getting to drawn off in probably irrelevent details like driver support.
I don't think that the final statement is a statement of his personal stance, just a example for clarification.
My brain hurts now. :)
--Drag
---November 5, 2004
Well, Microsoft argues all that and more..
--TonyLawrence
---November 5, 2004
I'm not sure I follow your closing statement. Do you mean that such would be an honestly held opinion that obviously isn't held by all?
Wssting time is certainly subjective, and there are strong arguments to be made that proprietary vendors are stifling innovation by restrictive copyrights and patents. So the "wrong" is again just opinion, isn't it? It may be opinion enforced by law, but laws aren't necessarily moral, or even good for society at large.
--TonyLawrence
---November 5, 2004
I figure the article is about how he feels we should structure our argument of opensource vs closed source software developement models rather then him expressing his personal views on it.
I think that he is using the final paragraph of a example of a argument that a person that is against open source software could use effectively to defend their position.
Goal: You want to convince people that the open source developement model sucks.
So instead of going in and pointing out all the things that Linux does badly, you approach it from a moral/value standpoint and argue that your hurting people buy persuing free software, and that your wasting your time because it's not sustainable.
You find your goal, then find your values that support that goal, then argue on the basis of moral values rather then using something like benchmarks or sales figures to make your point.
Sort of sticking to the ethical sides of things, and aviod getting to drawn off in probably irrelevent details like driver support.
I don't think that the final statement is a statement of his personal stance, just a example for clarification.
My brain hurts now. :)
--Drag
---November 5, 2004
Well, Microsoft argues all that and more..
--TonyLawrence
---November 7, 2004
OOPS!
Note to self...
It pays to take the time to write clearly.
I meant to say that many of us who support free and open source software (that most definitely includes me) do so because it accords with our values. Its emphasis on equality, sharing, and cooperation appeals to me, because I believe in these things. Clearly, however, not everyone does believe in the values of open source. Some people find the values behind the free software movement offensive, even frightening. In other words, whenever we discuss Linux or any other major free software or open source product, we face a conflict of values. Some of us will have our deepest beliefs confirmed if these products succeed. Others will have their deepest beliefs threatened by this success.
Obviously, our values will shape the way we want to see the progress of free and open source software. Those of us who want to see it succeed will trumpet every evidence of progress; those who do not, will fasten onto every setback. The problem arises when the technical questions turn into surrogates for talking about questions of values. When opponents of free software and open source argue that Linus Torvalds “could not” have invented Linux fair and square, I believe that such statements arise from their values rather than their technical assessments.
This makes it impossible to engage with either the values expressed or the assessments made. If someone explains why open source offends their values, we can at least agree to disagree, but if that person expresses their dislike as a series of (not very credible) technical claims (it doesn't work/he didn't write it/etc.), then we have nothing to talk about. When I read criticisms of free or open source software, and I don't take the time to separate the values questions from the technical assessments, I feel cheated, manipulated, and threatened. That makes me angry, and I come out with stronger and less logical statements than I would usually make.
If other people in the free software and open source communities tend to react the way I do, that might explain some of the intemperate rhetoric in various public fora.
-- John Spragge
---November 5, 2004
I'm not sure I follow your closing statement. Do you mean that such would be an honestly held opinion that obviously isn't held by all?
Wssting time is certainly subjective, and there are strong arguments to be made that proprietary vendors are stifling innovation by restrictive copyrights and patents. So the "wrong" is again just opinion, isn't it? It may be opinion enforced by law, but laws aren't necessarily moral, or even good for society at large.
--TonyLawrence
---November 5, 2004
I figure the article is about how he feels we should structure our argument of opensource vs closed source software developement models rather then him expressing his personal views on it.
I think that he is using the final paragraph of a example of a argument that a person that is against open source software could use effectively to defend their position.
Goal: You want to convince people that the open source developement model sucks.
So instead of going in and pointing out all the things that Linux does badly, you approach it from a moral/value standpoint and argue that your hurting people buy persuing free software, and that your wasting your time because it's not sustainable.
You find your goal, then find your values that support that goal, then argue on the basis of moral values rather then using something like benchmarks or sales figures to make your point.
Sort of sticking to the ethical sides of things, and aviod getting to drawn off in probably irrelevent details like driver support.
I don't think that the final statement is a statement of his personal stance, just a example for clarification.
My brain hurts now. :)
--Drag
---November 5, 2004
Well, Microsoft argues all that and more..
--TonyLawrence
---November 7, 2004
OOPS!
Note to self...
It pays to take the time to write clearly.
I meant to say that many of us who support free and open source software (that most definitely includes me) do so because it accords with our values. Its emphasis on equality, sharing, and cooperation appeals to me, because I believe in these things. Clearly, however, not everyone does believe in the values of open source. Some people find the values behind the free software movement offensive, even frightening. In other words, whenever we discuss Linux or any other major free software or open source product, we face a conflict of values. Some of us will have our deepest beliefs confirmed if these products succeed. Others will have their deepest beliefs threatened by this success.
Obviously, our values will shape the way we want to see the progress of free and open source software. Those of us who want to see it succeed will trumpet every evidence of progress; those who do not, will fasten onto every setback. The problem arises when the technical questions turn into surrogates for talking about questions of values. When opponents of free software and open source argue that Linus Torvalds “could not” have invented Linux fair and square, I believe that such statements arise from their values rather than their technical assessments.
This makes it impossible to engage with either the values expressed or the assessments made. If someone explains why open source offends their values, we can at least agree to disagree, but if that person expresses their dislike as a series of (not very credible) technical claims (it doesn't work/he didn't write it/etc.), then we have nothing to talk about. When I read criticisms of free or open source software, and I don't take the time to separate the values questions from the technical assessments, I feel cheated, manipulated, and threatened. That makes me angry, and I come out with stronger and less logical statements than I would usually make.
If other people in the free software and open source communities tend to react the way I do, that might explain some of the intemperate rhetoric in various public fora.
-- John Spragge
---November 7, 2004
Yes, I see what you mean now.
Much like I may get when talkng to a Republican :-)
And seriously, it is much the same. When the other side (whatever side you are one) makes charges that are utterly ridiculous or dishonest, you get angry. But for me, there's more to it. I've talked about this before in many places: as much as I hate it when Microsoft promotes a lie, I hate it more when someone on the Linux side says or does something moronic or unfair.
It's easy for any of us to fall into exaggeration, or to all too easily accept something that favors our side. We should be doing the same critical thinking about any statements we encounter, but unfortunately too few of us do that at all and even those who know better let a few things slip by now and then. I know I do.
--TonyLawrence
---November 5, 2004
I'm not sure I follow your closing statement. Do you mean that such would be an honestly held opinion that obviously isn't held by all?
Wssting time is certainly subjective, and there are strong arguments to be made that proprietary vendors are stifling innovation by restrictive copyrights and patents. So the "wrong" is again just opinion, isn't it? It may be opinion enforced by law, but laws aren't necessarily moral, or even good for society at large.
--TonyLawrence
---November 5, 2004
I figure the article is about how he feels we should structure our argument of opensource vs closed source software developement models rather then him expressing his personal views on it.
I think that he is using the final paragraph of a example of a argument that a person that is against open source software could use effectively to defend their position.
Goal: You want to convince people that the open source developement model sucks.
So instead of going in and pointing out all the things that Linux does badly, you approach it from a moral/value standpoint and argue that your hurting people buy persuing free software, and that your wasting your time because it's not sustainable.
You find your goal, then find your values that support that goal, then argue on the basis of moral values rather then using something like benchmarks or sales figures to make your point.
Sort of sticking to the ethical sides of things, and aviod getting to drawn off in probably irrelevent details like driver support.
I don't think that the final statement is a statement of his personal stance, just a example for clarification.
My brain hurts now. :)
--Drag
---November 5, 2004
Well, Microsoft argues all that and more..
--TonyLawrence
---November 7, 2004
OOPS!
Note to self...
It pays to take the time to write clearly.
I meant to say that many of us who support free and open source software (that most definitely includes me) do so because it accords with our values. Its emphasis on equality, sharing, and cooperation appeals to me, because I believe in these things. Clearly, however, not everyone does believe in the values of open source. Some people find the values behind the free software movement offensive, even frightening. In other words, whenever we discuss Linux or any other major free software or open source product, we face a conflict of values. Some of us will have our deepest beliefs confirmed if these products succeed. Others will have their deepest beliefs threatened by this success.
Obviously, our values will shape the way we want to see the progress of free and open source software. Those of us who want to see it succeed will trumpet every evidence of progress; those who do not, will fasten onto every setback. The problem arises when the technical questions turn into surrogates for talking about questions of values. When opponents of free software and open source argue that Linus Torvalds “could not” have invented Linux fair and square, I believe that such statements arise from their values rather than their technical assessments.
This makes it impossible to engage with either the values expressed or the assessments made. If someone explains why open source offends their values, we can at least agree to disagree, but if that person expresses their dislike as a series of (not very credible) technical claims (it doesn't work/he didn't write it/etc.), then we have nothing to talk about. When I read criticisms of free or open source software, and I don't take the time to separate the values questions from the technical assessments, I feel cheated, manipulated, and threatened. That makes me angry, and I come out with stronger and less logical statements than I would usually make.
If other people in the free software and open source communities tend to react the way I do, that might explain some of the intemperate rhetoric in various public fora.
-- John Spragge
---November 7, 2004
Yes, I see what you mean now.
Much like I may get when talkng to a Republican :-)
And seriously, it is much the same. When the other side (whatever side you are one) makes charges that are utterly ridiculous or dishonest, you get angry. But for me, there's more to it. I've talked about this before in many places: as much as I hate it when Microsoft promotes a lie, I hate it more when someone on the Linux side says or does something moronic or unfair.
It's easy for any of us to fall into exaggeration, or to all too easily accept something that favors our side. We should be doing the same critical thinking about any statements we encounter, but unfortunately too few of us do that at all and even those who know better let a few things slip by now and then. I know I do.
I think your comment about Linus Torvalds is a good point in that regard. He did not "invent" Linux - he rode on a lot of coat-tails. So did Unix itself, but I'd have to agree that Unix was more innovative than Linux. From my point of view, that's not the issue: I believe that he should be able to do that. Others feel differently: as you said, it's their values of capitalism, patents, and copyrights against my more libertarian open market beliefs.
--TonyLawrence
Don't miss responses! Subscribe to Comments by RSS or by Email
Click here to add your comments
If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar